Senators urge FAA to quickly approve drone identification rules

Government officials are looking to add more than a simple license plate to UAVs.

It's been an eventful week for the drone industry. One topic that dominated keynotes, seminars, and conversations at AUVSI's annual XPONENTIAL conference was the urgency for the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) to finalize the remote identification of unmanned aircraft systems (UAS).

This past Monday, the same day XPONENTIAL kicked off in Chicago, two senators, Edward Markey, a Democrat, and John Thune, a Republican, urged U.S. Transportation Secretary Elaine Chao to take action. 'Remote identification will enhance safety, security, and privacy, and serve as a critical tool for law enforcement to respond to and address reports of illegal and unauthorized drone operations,' the senators said in a letter to Chao.

Chao started proposing rules in January that will increasingly incorporate drones into the National Airspace Systems (NAS) including the ability for commercial remote pilots to fly over populated areas. However, the FAA noted that these measures cannot be implemented 'without a remote identification rule in place.'

What is Remote ID?

Remote ID, in its simplest form, is the concept that drones should have a digital license plate. Unlike a plate on an automobile, a string of letters and numbers attached to a drone cannot be identified from the ground. Instead, there will be an electronic system that verifies the location and operator while it is airborne.

As sales of unmanned aerial vehicles are expected to increase rapidly over the next few years, this system needs to be in place to ensure transparency and responsibility. Remote ID, when implemented properly, will allow complex operations, including flights beyond-visual-line-of-sight (BVLOS), to be performed by enterprises and commercial remote pilots at scale.

A long, arduous journey in the making

At a Monday afternoon AUVSI panel, DJI's Vice President of Policy & Legal Affairs, Brendan Schulman, acknowledged that he and fellow panel member Mark Aitken had spent a summer on the Remote ID Rulemaking Aviation committee. The resulting papers were submitted at AUVSI XPONENTIAL two years ago and 'we still don't have a proposed Remote ID rule,' says Schulman.

'Some of us at DJI believe this is an important solution to accountability, safety, security, as well as local laws like policy laws.' Schulman went on to state that it will help hold people accountable when something bad happens. He also acknowledged that DJI has a huge stake in the outcome for Remote ID. The company has already proven the effectiveness of tracking drones in sensitive areas with its own AeroScope system.

Now, there really isn't a viable excuse for any further delays as the group acknowledged that the FAA Reauthorization Act of 2018 gives the agency five years of predictable funding. Prior to the bill, there were numerous extensions filed, when funds ran short, that would halt progress on examining safety and security issues. 'Imagine running a company and not knowing if you were going to be funded the next couple of weeks,' said the Alliance for Drone Innovation's Jenny Rosenberg.

PrecisionHawk's Senior Vice President of Policy and Strategy, Diana Cooper, explained Remote ID and shared her stance to a standing-room-only crowd. 'Remote ID is like an electronic license plate. We're already used to driving around on roads and having some sort of an identifier. I think it's absolutely reasonable for operators across the board to have a similar license-type plate system for enforcement and compliance.'

'Remote ID is like an electronic license plate. We're already used to driving around on roads and having some sort of an identifier. I think it's absolutely reasonable for operators across the board to have a similar license-type plate system for enforcement and compliance.'

Cooper also delved into the history of how the FAA was formed. Initially there were two airspace regulators, civilian and military. The consequences included mid-air collisions that only ceased when the two branches merged. If two couldn't effectively make airspace safe, 3,000 counties attempting to enforce their own regulations will result in further stagnation for growth in the commercial drone industry.

A business cannot thrive if it has to address a separate set of safety and compliance regulations across every city it plans to operate. There are too many costs to take if they have to deal with various rules, knowledge tests, and restrictions across counties. Remote ID needs a uniform policy to work. Rosenberg summed up the conundrum with one statement: 'do we want our Air Traffic Controllers to be focused on their job, or do we want them to start being trained security professionals?'

'One thing that I've noticed is that the relationship between policy outcomes and public sentiment is very close,' said Schulman in the hopes that there will be more interest in commenting on a forthcoming Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM) for Remote ID. He was not too pleased that a small fraction of certified remote pilots left remarks on two recent NPRMs.

When it comes to making Remote ID a success, it needs to be easy, simple, and low to no-cost. Otherwise the interest won't be there and the system will ultimately fail. Some issues Schulman wants the public to think about and address when the time comes: what is this going to cost? For recreational users being pulled into the regulatory environment with the passing of Section 349, how can they be responsible? More than cost and complexity, the issue of privacy is also at stake. Where will flight information be stored and who is allowed access?

It's time for execution

Acting Deputy Administrator, Carl Burleson, stated that over 1.4 million drones have been registered, since it became a requirement, and more than 130,000 Part 107 certifications have been issued. 'There are nearly four times as many UAS than manned aircraft in the NAS (National Airspace System)' said Burleson at the AUVSI XPONENTIAL keynote, 'The Power of Execution,' on Wednesday morning.

He acknowledged that Remote ID is a mandatory first step towards further integration of drones into the NAS. 'We understand that remote identification is fundamental.' Remote ID Rulemaking should have started on May 1st but has been postponed to July 21st. As Burleson put it, 'it is a regulator's job to find a way forward to integrate drones.'

Comments

I doubt the cost of the ID equipment will be the end of the story. Just like every other ID registration, the government will get their hands on your wallet for annual registration fees for not only the drone but the drone pilot. Then the special fees start getting applied: battery disposal waste fee, noise abatement fee, drone ID monitoring fee, drone pilot education fee, drone safety research fee, drone environmental impact fee, Department of Drones fee. Don't forget the mandatory drone proof of insurance.

I wrote my phone numbers on my drone for at least two purposes:1. To show I am responsible and care public air space safety2. To be able to get if not drone at least my video/photo footage back... ...Not sure what is the proper way FAA should do, when there are more drones flying ... they'd better be regulated before hit something more important up in the sky. lol

Known it too, hence I only will get a "fancy" drone if it is <260g.Technology will advance so as the price value ... tomorrow.DJI will wake up maybe it did already ... for their next product SPARK--. lol

Let’s get real here, drones are the future of warfare. Just look at the recent Gatwick incident—that was no disgruntled employee, it was a foreign army or a terrorist cell probing the security around the airport.So what is the correct way to preserve the freedom to use the sky for out art while limiting those bad actors whose goal is to rain down death from above?

So many negative comments. Its as if drone users have no perspective on where drone numbers are going.

When automobiles were out numbered by horses there was no reason to ever think there was ever going to be such a thing as a speed limit. The future is more and more drones. Drone owners should get behind a competent system of regulation because the issue isn't if there will be regulation, only how it will end up.

With drone numbers exploding it's only a matter of time for incidents to begin turning the public completely and irreversibly against them, drone owners should be smart enough to know if you want your past time to have a future you need to get ahead of the problems before they get out of hand.

Your drones are being banned faster and faster at every location around the planet, everywhere I travel I see the no drones allowed signs. The writing is on the wall for you guys, you should embrace something that is trying to help you keep flying.

Drones are already allowed in 99% of the rest of the world, I would think drone operators would be concerned with keeping the other 99% available. As far as drones being allowed back at places banned, who knows, maybe over a long period of time, but most people not flying them in a tourist place find them annoying and distracting from nature with their whiney buzzing. And drone operators like the ones who have splashed them into Yellowstones prismatic pool and other things like that have probably put the death on their return. And that's the problem the more cowboy like that drones continue to be used and abused and accidents happening the more the response is simply to ban them. I'd think drone operators would be looking for anything that is in their favor instead of being negative about it.

@eske , I guess your not a drone user because they just don’t drop out of the sky , I’ve got over 6 million ft (1000 miles+) on mine and never experienced such a problem , draining the battery to dangerous levels forces a automatic landing ...

You really should just remain quiet if your clueless on how things works

Eske.I just illustrate the absurdities when you let peabrains regulate things that are beyond their paygrade. I despise idiocy. V of a drone freefalling is minuscule. Watch people walking into signposts while phoning and 3kg of head hit steelbar at 5mph...

Like IFF with no correct response shoot it down or jam it with the added benefit that no drone going down friendly or not is any great loss.Changing the codes every month through secured channels would make it more difficult for the naughtier boys playing with their pesky toys.

The should also focus on relaxing drones for commercial photos. Can't make sense that for fun you can take the same photo without any license and as soon you take money for it you have to do a test every 2 years. Not even a pilot takes his test every 2 years. In Germany it goes by the weight of the Drone not the purpose of use! Makes mores sense. Also it's mandatory to have insurance! Which is dirt cheap.

Anything can be hacked, anything can be gotten around. Your house can be broken into but you still lock the door. Digital ids are to police the 99% of the law abiding citizens and give accountability. The other 1% will be taken care of as always through the courts.

I have no problem with mandatory registration and especially insurance for drones over a certain weight. I've flown RC models for many decades (and now drones too) and at club flying fields we have mandatory licences and insurance (and we need it; people get injured or even killed when large scale models crash, or when some careless person gets cut or loses a finger/s...I've seen that happen many times).

As long as the regulations are fair and workable, it helps keep the hobby alive for everyone and covers commercial concerns too. Oh and although a drone operator may not be a pilot in the conventional sense (or maybe they are, pilots are common in the hobby) they are still piloting the drone. ;-)

I'm also a long time flyer of RC airplanes, helicopters and drones. The potential issue I see with remote ID of recreational aircraft is the cost. How much will this cost the average RC aircraft hobbyist to install remote ID hardware? It it's expensive, say goodbye to our hobby and the AMA.

What problems are we really looking to solve? Regulation and identification always works. (Insert snickers here) The track record of identification, registration, licensing, insurance, etc. as applied to drivers, vehicles, firearms, boats, aircraft, etc., works well (or not) for those willing to participate in the schemes. And seems to work not at all for those not interested in playing the game. And the longer it takes to work out wrinkles, the more "drones" out there that are non-compliant.

That's not to say there aren't some concerns. Positive traffic control may well be needed. Expecting this to preclude bad actors acting badly? Not so sure.

Head in the sand much?The potential for a problem exists.Exclusion, proximity issues covered by compliance with laws in many jurisdictions mean nothing to some users.Observations of use near children, out of view, over restricted areas have occurred.

There are current issues that cost actual lives, not the Potential of drone problems. This is being driven by paranoia more than anything else. The drone industry doesn't have the lobbying power of the groups causing real problems.I would guess that DJI supports legislation because they have the technology at hand and they are trying to head off drones facing bans.

No, the Academy of Model Aeronautics was founded in 1936 or about 83 years ago. The hobby began with wired/control line model aircraft and soon after, began using wireless (analog) control links. Model aviation has indeed been around for almost a century.

So what? Those of us who fly recreationally and responsibly belong to the AMA, and that membership carries 2 1/2 million dollars of liability insurance with it. It's dirt cheap - $75 a year for the insurance, the magazine and all the other things AMA does. You know why it's so cheap? Because claims are so rare. In other words, it's not a real problem.

New regulations aren't going to prevent people from doing things that were already illegal before the new regulations. It's already illegal to intentionally interfere with a full-scale airplane, it's already illegal to fly in class B airspace. So, how are new regulations going to do anything to stop people from doing stuff that's already illegal?

" - $75 a year for the insurance, the magazine and all the other things AMA does. You know why it's so cheap? Because claims are so rare. In other words, it's not a real problem."

i'm guessing within a year or two you won't be able to post the same thing, watch as your insurance goes higher and higher and eventually disappears after a few large claims and as legislation increases liability to reckless drone accidents that will ruin it for everyone. It won't take too many to change everything that you think is never going to change.

Second, the Sussex Police admitted that many of the subsequent drone sightings were likely of drones operated by the Sussex Police Department itself.

The Sussex PD established a drone program to provide surveillance at the airport, back in 2014. As of 2018, they had over 40 officers trained to operate SPD drones - which were "large" and of the "industrial specification" type described by the airport during the Gatwick incident.

The SPD launched their own drones at Gatwick Airport to hunt for the errant drone. However, there are no distinguishing lights on the SPD drones - and no way for observers to know if they were seeing a police drone or an errant drone. SPD has admitted this.

Pollution is a slightly different area and it obviously needs good control. However, let's not politicise an important issue. Aviation safety is more directly relevant here, and what happened in the cases of 737 Max crashing should be more relevant. The ease with which Boeing can get FAA's approval, FAA's reluctance to ban those airplanes even after the disasters, and the credibility and independence of this approval body are more important considerationsn, even though it's not China's.

The 737 Max issue was caused by the negligence of two 3rd world countries failing to train their pilots how to deal with system failures, an event that occurs with great frequency on aircraft, and the primary reason aircrews still exist. Those planes had 40 times more flight hours in the US without a single crash.

xPhoenix Wrong. The largest airline pilots unions agreed there was no need to ground the aircraft, but call for "additional training". That "additional training" refers to handling the potential failure (all systems can and will fail) of the MCAS system.

On the Ethiopian flight a sensor failed, likely due to a bird strike, the idiot pilots initially disabled, then REENABLED the failed flight control system immediately prior to the crash.

Now Boeing is working to make the system idiot proof, compensating for the lack of maintaining training standards common in third world countries like Ethiopia, where the pilots had NO ADDITIONAL training for the updated 737 MAX.

What do you work for Boeing or something? They tried to rush this plane to market without any additional training so they could compete with Airbus. The new engines and their placement led to stability issues, then they came up with a hair-brained software "fix" to avoid stalls. This system relied on ONE sensor, and they made the second one a paid option. They basically self-certified, and mislead the FAA on how much control this MCAS system could assert. It was supposed to have a small amount of control, but they changed it after the fact.

If you actually read about the Ethiopian crash, you'd know they disabled the system because it was trying to fly them into the ground. They tried to manually trim out the plane, but the stupid MCAS had already trimmed the stabilizer so much that it was physically impossible to do it manually. So, they had to re-enable the electric trim. However, this made the MCAS turn on again, and well, you know the rest. This is all about greed.

What greed would they gain by putting out a system that would crash? I agree that they should not be charging additional for the other sensor. But if it was do to a sensor malfunction, I really can't call that greed. Things happen.

As for the software being a fix - isn't software always there to control the hardware? You always have to "fix" software to make the hardware perform more optimally. New engines are going to have to have software to control them. It's always a work in progress - just look at Windows and Mac OS. You also cannot have every possible scenario all worked out so there will be updates as they find more variables that have to be corrected.

It's about greed because they knew the plan had issues, yet they put it out anyway. Heck, they wouldn't have even grounded them after TWO crashes if it weren't for the rest of the world forcing their hand. They badly needed an aircraft to compete with the Airbus NEO, so they jerry-rigged a 737 with oversized engines and whacked out flight characteristics, and this is the result. The CEO and others need to be held criminally liable. What they did is sick and disgusting.

Latest in-depth reviews

The Leica Q2 is an impressively capable fixed-lens, full-frame camera with a 47MP sensor and a sharp, stabilized 28mm F1.7 Summilux lens. It's styled like a traditional Leica M rangefinder and brings a host of updates to the hugely popular original Leica Q (Typ 116) that was launched in 2015.

The Edelkrone DollyONE is an app-controlled, motorized flat surface camera dolly. The FlexTILT Head 2 is a lightweight head that extends, tilts and pans. They aren't cheap, but when combined these two products provide easy camera mounting, re-positioning and movement either for video work or time lapse photography.

Are you searching for the best image quality in the smallest package? Well, the GR III has a modern 24MP APS-C sensor paired with an incredibly sharp lens and fits into a shirt pocket. But it's not without its caveats, so read our full review to get the low-down on Ricoh's powerful new compact.

The Olympus OM-D E-M1X is the ultimate sports, action and wildlife camera for professional Micro Four Thirds users. However, it can't quite match the level of AF reliability offered by its full frame competitors.

Latest buying guides

What's the best camera for under $500? These entry level cameras should be easy to use, offer good image quality and easily connect with a smartphone for sharing. In this buying guide we've rounded up all the current interchangeable lens cameras costing less than $500 and recommended the best.

What’s the best camera costing over $2000? The best high-end camera costing more than $2000 should have plenty of resolution, exceptional build quality, good 4K video capture and top-notch autofocus for advanced and professional users. In this buying guide we’ve rounded up all the current interchangeable lens cameras costing over $2000 and recommended the best.

What's the best camera for shooting sports and action? Fast continuous shooting, reliable autofocus and great battery life are just three of the most important factors. In this buying guide we've rounded-up several great cameras for shooting sports and action, and recommended the best.

What’s the best camera for less than $1000? The best cameras for under $1000 should have good ergonomics and controls, great image quality and be capture high-quality video. In this buying guide we’ve rounded up all the current interchangeable lens cameras costing under $1000 and recommended the best.

If you're looking for a high-quality camera, you don't need to spend a ton of cash, nor do you need to buy the latest and greatest new product on the market. In our latest buying guide we've selected some cameras that while they're a bit older, still offer a lot of bang for the buck.

We've updated our waterproof camera buying guide with the latest round of rugged compacts, and we've crowned a new winner as the best pick in the category: the Olympus TG-6. That is, unless you happen to find a good deal on the TG-5.

Researchers with the Samsung AI Center in Moscow and the Skolkovo Institute of Science and Technology have created a system that transforms still images into talking portraits with as little as a single image.

K&R Photographics, a camera store in Crescent Springs, Kentucky, was robbed by armed men, who not only took thousands of dollars worth of camera equipment, but also injured the 70-year-old co-owner of the store.

The new Fujifilm GFX 100 boasts some impressive specifications, including 100MP, in-body stabilization and 4K video. But what's it like to shoot with? Senior Editor Barnaby Britton found out on a recent trip to Florence, Italy.

It's here! The long-awaited next-generation Fujifilm GFX has been officially launched. Click through to learn more about the camera that Fujifilm is hoping will shake up the pro photography market - the GFX100.

We've known about the Fujifilm GFX 100 since last fall, but now it's official: this 102MP medium-format monster will be available at the end of June for $10,000. In addition to its incredible resolution, the camera also has in-body IS, a hybrid AF system, 4K video and a removable EVF.

According to DJI, any drone model weighing over 250 grams will have AirSense Automatic Dependent Surveillance-Broadcast (ADS-B) receivers installed to help drone operators know when planes and helicopters are nearby.

Chris and Jordan are kicking off a new segment in which they make feature suggestions to manufacturers for the benefit of all photographer-kind. To start things off, they take a look at the humble USB-C port and everything it could be doing for us.

The Olympus TG-5 is one of our favorite waterproof cameras, and the company today introduced the TG-6, a relatively low-key update. New features include the addition of an anti-reflective coating on the sensor, a higher-res LCD, and more underwater and macro modes.

The Leica Q2 is an impressively capable fixed-lens, full-frame camera with a 47MP sensor and a sharp, stabilized 28mm F1.7 Summilux lens. It's styled like a traditional Leica M rangefinder and brings a host of updates to the hugely popular original Leica Q (Typ 116) that was launched in 2015.

We've been playing around with a prototype of the new Peak Design Travel Tripod and are impressed so far: it's incredibly compact, fast to deploy and stable enough for the heaviest bodies. However, the price may turn some away.